Due to the drugging and injuries, April's capabilities have
declined significantly since she spoke to you on the phone, but now the U.S.
Court of Appeals has ordered her to prove she is competent to continue to
proceed. Back in front of the same federal judge who took 8 months to rule on
her case and would not stop the drugging when she could. This is so unfair, so
wrong, that I simply had to take a long shot at getting Justice Kagan to stop
it.

I have attached the Application for Stay. It's not perfect,
and I understand that you may not understand some of the legal jargon, but the
first 12 pages are primarily factual, so I hope you get an opportunity to read
it.

Thank you for listening and for your writings on April.

This is Key's pro se motion:

Three weeks ago Key had sent this message:

What a long struggle this has been. April's case has now
been thrown back to the district court, to determine
April's"capacity". This is grotesquely unfair to her because her
capacity is deteriorating due to her disease, the length of the proceedings, and
the drugging and injuries incurred during her captivity. So I am preparing to
ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay and writ of mandamus to force the lower
courts to follow the law. This case will not remain under the public's radar
much longer.

Additionally, I will send a letter tomorrow to the U.S.
Congress asking for the impeachment of federal district court Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt. That letter is attached and should explain why I feel so strongly
about how the federal courts have abused April's right to liberty. Feel free to
use it as you see fit.

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

317 Russell Senate Office Building

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Cc: Representative Eric Cantor, House Republican Leader

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 224-3121

November 30th, 2013

Dear Senator McConnell:

This letter is to ask for impeachment proceedings against U.S. District
Court Judge

Tanya Walton Pratt.

Judge Pratt, an appointee of President Obama, sits on the bench of the Southern District of Indiana. This request is being made due to Judge Pratt’s
violations of Indiana state law and federal law, and because she has usurped the will
of the U.S.Congress and the common law of the U.S. Supreme Court. This request is
pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

On January 20th and January 27th, 2012, Judge Pratt, a citizen and
resident of the State of Indiana, was notified of injuries due to the drugging and
neglect of a disabled adult, April Dawn Jones. Ms. Jones is in the custody of an
unlawful guardianship mill being run by one of Judge Pratt’s Democratic colleagues on the state bench of Indiana. The state judge has openly admitted to a
reporter that he is running a “team” of Democrats that ensnare disabled persons and hand
them off to a so-called guardian. Although this clearly violates separation of
powers, Judge Pratt has gone out of her way to “validate” this unlawful and unholy
team of actors.Included within the verified reports submitted to Judge Pratt were
photos of the injuries to Ms. Jones (a 38-year old woman who I had been assisting for
many years across State lines before she was “granny-napped” by the Indiana
guardianship team).

Instead of taking injunctive action or notifying Indiana authorities as
required by Indiana state law, Ind. Code 12-10-3-9, Judge Pratt sat on the reports
for another 4months then attempted to cover up the scheme and the neglect by
dismissing the case containing the verified facts and exhibits. Within the dismissal
opinion, Judge Pratt attempted to intimidate me from assisting Ms. Jones by
disparaging me to the public and the higher courts with the language “whether
well-intentioned or not.” The willful delay, cover up, and the disparagement are all contrary to
the will of Congress in passing 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (part of the ADA), which protects
those who assist disabled persons in defending their rights, by providing that:It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual... on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

As part of her opinion, Judge Pratt falsified the parties involved in
the suit, by revising the caption to make me the real party in interest and then by
relabeling the respondent as “Lamar”. Were these two issues taken separately from
the opinion as a whole, one might see them as mere typographical mistakes.Regardless, this is a specific violation of 18 U.S.C. 2071 (b): (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map,book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Also within the dismissal opinion, Judge Pratt usurped the common law
of the U.S.Supreme Court by steering around significant Supreme Court case law,
all in an obvious but misguided attempt to cover up for the malfeasance of a
fellow state judge in Indiana (Judge Pratt is also a 20-year veteran of the Indiana
state trial court bench).

Upon seeing the convoluted manner in which Judge Pratt’s opinion
misstates theparties and steers around controlling law, one who was familiar with
the applicablefederal statutory and common law in this case would come only to the
conclusionthat she is not qualified to sit on the federal bench, neither by
temperament norability. I cannot prove but do believe that Judge Pratt initiated or
used ex parte communications with other Democratic members of Indiana’s legal
community to make her decision, all in violation of the Code of Conduct for federal
judges.From the research of all of Judge Pratt’s cases over a 2-year span,
Judge Pratt’s writings show a particular interest and bias in cases involving
abortion rights cases(of which she favors), with bias against white persons, males, and
against disabled persons, all contrary to federal law and the U.S. Constitution. (While
Ms. Jones was dying awaiting Judge Pratt’s decision, Judge Pratt was instead working
to approvemore of Planned Parenthood’s agenda, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Ind.,
Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 794 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ind.
2011).)

One might draw the conclusion that Judge Pratt favors the death of the
unborn and the disabled. Judge Pratt’s techniques in implementing her agenda is
not the “good behavior” required of an Article III judge, particularly one whose
obsequious writings in finance cases appears to point to higher aspirations.The guardian and judge in control of Ms. Jones have allowed fraud to be
committed against the United States by allowing the nursing home to bill the
Medicaid and Medicare programs for Ms. Jones care and rehabilitation, when that care
and rehabilitation had not been provided to Ms. Jones. Judge Pratt, herself
an attorney as well as judge, could not have been unaware that her failure to
report the injuriesto Ms. Jones might be aiding and abetting a fraud being perpetrated against the United States of America, contrary to the will of Congress in passing
the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

Due to Judge Pratt’s incompetent, unlawful, and neglectful handling,
Ms. Jones’ case has been drawn out for more than two years and she now faces an
accelerated death while being drugged and injured at the hands of an unlawful
guardianship team.

This request is not in any way to ask the U.S. Congress to intervene in
the legal proceedings of the underlying case but rather to take action against
Judge Pratt for her violations of Indiana law, federal law, and for usurping the will
of the U.S.Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ms. Jones case is now pending before the Seventh Circuit of the U.S.
Court of Appeals, case no. 12-2094, and may be used to independently verify the
lower court documents, exhibits, and chronology of events discussed in this letter.From discussing this case with my fellow coworkers and neighbors, I can
assure you that reasonable Americans are aghast at this behavior by a federal
judge. I I thankyou for your assistance in this matter.

Google Custom Search

Pages

Mitchell Langbert

About Me

I have researched and written about employee benefit issues and in my previous life was a corporate benefits administrator. I am currently associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. I hold a Ph.D. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, an MBA from UCLA and an AB from Sarah Lawrence College. I am working on a project involving public policy. I blog on academic and political topics.